Bible Study Just What ARE Pentecostal "Tongues"?

[mutzrein]

Coop, gingercat & others

Thankyou to those who responded to my ealier post.

Some of you guys sure go through things with a fine tooth comb. Now I don't wish to ignore or negate your responses by not answering them but I simply don't have the time to answer them in as much detail as you have given to mine. The problem for me is that the premise upon which I view the gospel and things such as being born again, baptism of the Holy Spirit, The gifts of the Spirit, speaking in tongues etc seems to differ to the premise adopted by some others. So for me to explain something would mean that for every issue, every question would have to be taken back to the fundamental premise of what I see is the Gospel and man's relationship with God through Christ. Because that should be our foundation.

So, I would like to offer to anyone who wishes, a document in PDF format written by a friend with my collaboration, on these very matters - and more. It is entitled "If you care (read this) The Gospel". This is NOT an attempt to convert anyone to any particular mindset, cult or denomination. All I have is a desire that we, as members of the body of Christ understand something of the gospel which seems to be hidden from many.

If you or anyone else wishes to avail yourself of this, please PM me.

Thanks

 

[lecoop]

quote:Why don't you believe what Paul said: " I would that you all spoke with tongues? end of quote. .

Tongue speakers' interpretation of Scripture is all out of context. His gifts are supposed to glorify Him. What are those who are speaking tongues accomplishing? They are just complacent in the fact that they "can speak tongues"!

We have accountability to each other. I believe you are being a bad witnesses for Him at His expence.

This is just not true. The context of these scriptures is not difficult. Some just want to put a spin on them. Phrases like "no man understands" and "my understanding is unfruitful," are clear enough for a five year old to understand. The more time one spends praying in tongues, the more one desires to praise and worship and magnify God. These go together!

Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

I will agree that many old time Pentecostal folks spoke in tongues once, and then stagnated. That was not God's plan. Tongues are first and foremost a prayer language, and are to be used daily. Praying in tongues is one way to pray a perfect prayer.

 

[lecoop]

Duplicate removed

 

[lecoop]

Duplicate removed

 

[lecoop]

Duplicate removed

 

[lecoop]

I believe that it is possible to speak in tongues...

However it must be in the context of Acts 2 and Exodus 19....


Exodus 19 is the very first Pentecost (Shavout in Judaism).....

Exd 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that [was] in the camp trembled.

According to the Rabbis the thunders were actually voices proclaiming the Torah to the 70 known languages of the world at that time....


Acts 2 is the Exd 19 repeated at Jerusalem ......again this happened on the latter Pentecost...

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Act 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The languages spoken were "known" languages....not incoherent babble....if someone is speaking in tongues, it best be understood by someone in the group or it is bogus babbling.....(a fake).

Sorry, try to tell that to Paul. He disagrees with you. What did he say? "No man understands" and "my understanding was unfruitful." Why did he write these phrases? Because Paul spoke in tongues more than them all, so he knew. He knew from experience that when he spoke in tongues, his mind was bypassed, and it was his spirit man praying. He was praying "in the spirit." Praying in the spirit and with the mind are two mutually exclusive ways to pray. When he prayed "in the spirit" it was with no understanding of what he was saying, so he wrote, "my understanding was unfruitful." The tongues were coming from the Holy Spirit in his spirit, then from his spirit to his mouth, with the mind not knowing what was being said. Then he had heard many others speak in tongues also. We know his standard operation procedure, from Acts 19. His first goal was to get people born again, then get them to receive the baptism with the HS. One could say, to get them filled with the HS. Therefore, it is sure that he had heard many people speak in tongues when he laid hands on them. Therefore, he also knew that "no man understands." He knew that these were heavenly languages, and not earthly languages, so he wrote that they were speaking to God, and "no man understands."

In Acts 2, the people heard in their language. They were speaking unknown tongues just as Paul was describing in 1 Cor. 14. God just added a second miracle so that people could hear in their own language.

Coop

 

[lecoop]

You sure are hung up on this one manifestation of tongues. Please tell me, what if God brought tongues and interpretation in a meeting, and there were only believers there? Who would the sign then be for? When Paul is praying in tongues, who is the sign then for? Your lack of understanding causes you great confusion. When Paul prays in tongues, it is not as a sign to unbelievers; it is an entirely different manifestation of tongues. Where were the unbelievers in Acts 19? Where were the unbelievers in Acts 10?

I'm hung up on it because todays false manifestations are the door that leads to the world. I have personally seen many lives destroyed by these imature churches in just about any way you could imagine. While you are gloating of your spiritual superioity, keep a look out of the corner of your eye and pay attention to the people walking back out the door in worse shape than they were when they came in.

I don't know everything, but I clearly see the spiritual blindness of the people who are defending tongues on this thread. I wish it were more abvious to you. I 'm not saying that for any other reason than to express my frustration in trying to have a meaningful discussion that can accomplish something. This is impossible if you ignore the points of my posts. You guys are willfully blind and you show it with every post.

[quote:6a13a]This happens just as much in non-Charasmatic churches as Charasmatic and to use it to prove that Charasmatic Churches are in the wrong by believing that tongues exist today is fallacious.

I go by what I see, and the testimony of the many that have left the charismatic pentecostal churches. It's the same report every time.

A charismatic pentecostal church is so very far from a solid, truth loving, Bible believing church that it's not even funny. I know, i've been part of both.

Incorrect. There is no distinguishing between Paul's gift of tongues and that used by people in the Corinthian Church. The difference is in the "how," not in the "what". If you disagree then prove with Scripture that the gift of tongues in the Corinthian Church was pagan. Again, you are fallaciously "poisoning the well".

How many times must you be shown this before you see it? Do you want to have a "no bull" real discussion, where you cannot overlook points made and must answer all questions with the best of your ability? I'm all for it, but what is happening on this thread is not that.[/quote:6a13a]

Dave, I can understand your frustration, in a small way. I had some very good friends that were Mormons. I worked with them daily for many years. They were good people; just very deceived people. I know the frustration of trying to get them to see the deceit. Many Mormons will not know until it is too late.

I believe you are sincere in your belief that those that speak in tongues are deceived. I think you are in error. Dave, can a good Christian tell when he or she is drifting away from God? Absolutely we can! We have the Holy Spirit within. He pleads with us to spend time with the Father. He leads us into all truth, according to Jesus. Don't you think, then, that we would know if our tongues were from some other source than the HS? I know in my own life, that the more I pray in tongues (which is yielding to the Spirit within) the more I also want to praise and magnify God. If I were yielding to a demon, the result would be just the opposite. I am just smart enough to know that.

I grew up visiting a spiritualist church many times, for that was where my father went. I was taken to seances many times, from about 5 years old on up. I have seen the work of demons, and I can tell you there is a VAST difference. I have read the book, "The Brighter Side of Evil," written by (I believe) Hal Lindsey's sister in law. She was deceived for many years by the occult, because she saw what she thought was the bright side, and she also saw what she deemed as the evil side. She thought the bright side was God and the evil side was the devil. She was very demonized, and very deceived. But thank God, she got set free. Her book is a classic.

Dave, the truth of this matter is, when a demon is concerned in a matter, someone that is truly spiritual can detect it immediately. They leave their evidence. Jesus said, by their fruits you know them. There have been groups that practice speaking in tongues, that I am sure it was not God. In the early years of the Mormon church, I have read that some spoke in tongues. I was not there to hear it or judge it. However, without being there, I am convinced that they were not praising and magnifying God!

In trying to get a Mormon born again, I persuaded him to visit my church, if I would visit his. What an eye opening experience that was! When the speaker started speaking, every kid there started fussing. And they kept it up for the entire sermon. I watched the adults closely. It seemed that they all went into a semi-trance! There was absolutely nothing of God in that service. It was all demonic.

I spent about 10 years of my life in the ministry of deliverance. This was after I received much deliverance myself. Because of my time in the spiritualist church, I needed much deliverance! I saw miracle after miracle. I saw demons scream and saw people fall as dead, just as Jesus did. I had many demons speak to me, as they did to Jesus. I only say this to tell you that I am well aware of the work of devils.

I am not saying that all Pentecostal churches are perfect; indeed none are. There are some Pentecostal churches that are into doctrines of devils big time. But the same could be said for any denomination. Therefore, we must base our experiences on what the word of God says. I see this as very black and white: if the first 120 people of the church age received the baptism with the HS, and spoke in tongues, and we are still in the church age, then why not us? It is as simple as that. If Paul spoke in tongues more that all the others back then, then I want to do the same today. I know from my own experience that tongues and revelation from heaven go together. Perhaps Paul knew the same thing, as he had much revelation.

Dave, I was born again at 7, and received the baptism with the HS when I was 20. Therefore, I had over ten years as a Christian without this experience. I can truthfully tell you, my prayer life increased 20 fold when I received the HS. It made a huge difference in my life. I would no more go back to the way I was before this experience than I would turn my back on Jesus. Therefore, try not to get too frustrated. I believe I teach the truth. I believe it is you that is confused.

Coop

 

[lecoop]

quote:Why don't you believe what Paul said: " I would that you all spoke with tongues? end of quote. .

Tongue speakers' interpretation of Scripture is all out of context. His gifts are supposed to glorify Him. What are those who are speaking tongues accomplishing? They are just complacent in the fact that they "can speak tongues"!

We have accountability to each other. I believe you are being a bad witnesses for Him at His expence.

This is just not true. The context of these scriptures is not difficult. Some just want to put a spin on them. Phrases like "no man understands" and "my understanding is unfruitful," are clear enough for a five year old to understand. The more time one spends praying in tongues, the more one desires to praise and worship and magnify God. These go together!

Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

I will agree that many old time Pentecostal folks spoke in tongues once, and then stagnated. That was not God's plan. Tongues are first and foremost a prayer language, and are to be used daily. Praying in tongues is one way to pray a perfect prayer.

I praise and worship Him all the time; I never babble. He has given me a grateful heart. The Spirit-filled life is a devoted Christian life. If you are a committed believer you are Spirit-filled. Period. You dont have to babble to be spritually filled.

If you replace the word "tongue" with "language" it makes perfect sense! Paul spoke seveal languages; thats what he meant when he said "tongue".

Sorry, but this is very poor exegesis of these verses. Why would Paul say, "my understanding is unfruitful?" He was saying that he did not understand what he was saying. This fits "gibberish" or a language made up on the spot by the HS, much better than Paul speaking Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and other known languages. When Paul said, "no man understands," he meant it. He could only say this of a heavenly language. When he said that the tongues speaker is speaking to God, for no man understands," then he could NOT have been meaning an earthly language, as they are directed towards other people.

Sorry, Gingercat, but you need to read chapter 14 over again, without your preconceived glasses on! : -)) Btw, I like your name!

Coop

 

[Georges]

I believe that it is possible to speak in tongues...

However it must be in the context of Acts 2 and Exodus 19....


Exodus 19 is the very first Pentecost (Shavout in Judaism).....

Exd 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that [was] in the camp trembled.

According to the Rabbis the thunders were actually voices proclaiming the Torah to the 70 known languages of the world at that time....


Acts 2 is the Exd 19 repeated at Jerusalem ......again this happened on the latter Pentecost...

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Act 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The languages spoken were "known" languages....not incoherent babble....if someone is speaking in tongues, it best be understood by someone in the group or it is bogus babbling.....(a fake).

Sorry, try to tell that to Paul.

You mean the apparently Apostate Paul?...sorry....but Paul the apparent Gnostic can't be trusted....

He disagrees with you.

I guess he probably would...

What did he say? "No man understands" and "my understanding was unfruitful." Why did he write these phrases? Because Paul spoke in tongues more than them all, so he knew.

This is not a Jewish/Christian practice...are you sure this is not an example of the ecstatic rambling that Pagans experienced during mystery rituals infiltrating the Church in Asia....After all Paul is from a city that was known to be a center of the Mystery religions. Again, nowhere in the OT is there any instance of uncontrolled babble in reference to praising God. And, also, show me where the Angels spoke anything other than what was understood by the hearers or their message.

He knew from experience that when he spoke in tongues, his mind was bypassed, and it was his spirit man praying.

yeh...God wants to hear you praise him in a language you can't understand....makes perfect sense to me....

Sorry...wrong again...according to Acts 2 the spirit came upon the Apostles giving them the ability to speak in different languages at that time...only.(

He was praying "in the spirit." Praying in the spirit and with the mind are two mutually exclusive ways to pray. When he prayed "in the spirit" it was with no understanding of what he was saying, so he wrote, "my understanding was unfruitful."

That's insane......speaking in a babbling manner in which no man can understand is demonic, or self praising (a show for others...). There is no precedence set (to my knowledge) in the OT. Speaking in a manner in which someone (a foreigner) can understand...I accept as possible.

Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

These were languages that men knew....not angel speak as I've heard pentecostals call the babbling.


The tongues were coming from the Holy Spirit in his spirit, then from his spirit to his mouth, with the mind not knowing what was being said.

I think the disciples knew what to say, and understood what they were preaching as the HS gave them power to understand....they had their minds opened by the HS...and were given the ability to speak in "understandable" language....

Then he had heard many others speak in tongues also. We know his standard operation procedure, from Acts 19. His first goal was to get people born again, then get them to receive the baptism with the HS. One could say, to get them filled with the HS. Therefore, it is sure that he had heard many people speak in tongues when he laid hands on them. Therefore, he also knew that "no man understands." He knew that these were heavenly languages, and not earthly languages, so he wrote that they were speaking to God, and "no man understands."


Uh huh....and were did the HS cause people to speak in tongues before the Pentecost of Acts 2? There were people (believers) who were baptized by the disciples before that....no mention of the tongues there.....
I've read where the Jews think that the heavenly language is Hebrew....but I'll have to find that again to verify that.

In Acts 2, the people heard in their language.

True....
They were speaking unknown tongues just as Paul was describing in 1 Cor. 14.

Not true...there were people there who were able to understand the different languages....unknown tongues means unknown tongues...or babble..

God just added a second miracle so that people could hear in their own language.

It doesn't say that in the verse.....

Coop

Cooooooppppp.......

 

[SputnikBoy]

Oh dear . . .what a tangled web we weave. When one desires that the scriptures say something - even if they don't - then the issue itself becomes as phony as Pentecostal 'tongues'.

As alluded to by Gingercat, Paul having said to his congregation that he spoke in tongues more than any of them gives today's 'tongue-speaker' no justification whatever for doing what they do. Paul never attributes to the Holy Spirit the fact that he speaks several different languages. All he is saying is that he speaks several languages ...plain and simple. There is an air of arrogance here too, I feel, since how would Paul know that someone hearing or reading his message was not multi-lingual also? Unless, of course, he was aiming this at people he knew personally. By the way, where are we told that Paul has 'the GIFT of tongues'?

I would suggest that one reads up on the history of the Church of Corinth and the reason that Paul was addressing certain issues that had been brought to his attention. First of all ...PAUL WAS ADDRESSING THE CHURCH OF CORINTH AND NOT THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF 2006!! The 'tongue-speakers of today need to catch on to that fact. The Church of Corinth was obviously not a model church, similar to our own, but Paul was specifically addressing factions within the church that had been brought to his attention by members of the household of Chloe. We don't know what THEY wrote and we only have Paul's response to go by. So, at times, it's very much like hearing only one end of a telephone conversation. We need to bear this in mind when WE address issues pertaining to 1 Corinthians.

We also need to bear in mind that Paul was a human being and that he used many examples of speech exaggeration or hyperbole to illustrate a message that was intended to hit home. We do the same thing today. He also didn't speak the 'tongue' of English and so some of the phrasing he uses may occasionally require a little extra thought. It's these instances where the Pentecostals say "aha!" and run with them to support their false doctrine.

Once again ...where does it say that Paul had the gift of tongues?

 

[lecoop]

I believe that it is possible to speak in tongues...

However it must be in the context of Acts 2 and Exodus 19....


Exodus 19 is the very first Pentecost (Shavout in Judaism).....

Exd 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that [was] in the camp trembled.

According to the Rabbis the thunders were actually voices proclaiming the Torah to the 70 known languages of the world at that time....


Acts 2 is the Exd 19 repeated at Jerusalem ......again this happened on the latter Pentecost...

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Act 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The languages spoken were "known" languages....not incoherent babble....if someone is speaking in tongues, it best be understood by someone in the group or it is bogus babbling.....(a fake).

Sorry, try to tell that to Paul.

You mean the apparently Apostate Paul?...sorry....but Paul the apparent Gnostic can't be trusted....

He disagrees with you.

I guess he probably would...

What did he say? "No man understands" and "my understanding was unfruitful." Why did he write these phrases? Because Paul spoke in tongues more than them all, so he knew.

This is not a Jewish/Christian practice...are you sure this is not an example of the ecstatic rambling that Pagans experienced during mystery rituals infiltrating the Church in Asia....After all Paul is from a city that was known to be a center of the Mystery religions. Again, nowhere in the OT is there any instance of uncontrolled babble in reference to praising God. And, also, show me where the Angels spoke anything other than what was understood by the hearers or their message.

He knew from experience that when he spoke in tongues, his mind was bypassed, and it was his spirit man praying.

yeh...God wants to hear you praise him in a language you can't understand....makes perfect sense to me....

Sorry...wrong again...according to Acts 2 the spirit came upon the Apostles giving them the ability to speak in different languages at that time...only.(

He was praying "in the spirit." Praying in the spirit and with the mind are two mutually exclusive ways to pray. When he prayed "in the spirit" it was with no understanding of what he was saying, so he wrote, "my understanding was unfruitful."

That's insane......speaking in a babbling manner in which no man can understand is demonic, or self praising (a show for others...). There is no precedence set (to my knowledge) in the OT. Speaking in a manner in which someone (a foreigner) can understand...I accept as possible.

So you disagree with Paul. You have already made that plain. Personally, I will go with Paul. If you were wise, you would too. Why would there be precedent in the OT? We live in the new. Tongues are a new testament gift.


Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

These were languages that men knew....not angel speak as I've heard pentecostals call the babbling.


That is just your "spin" and not what the text actually says. And your spin does not agree with 1 Cor. 14.

The tongues were coming from the Holy Spirit in his spirit, then from his spirit to his mouth, with the mind not knowing what was being said.

I think the disciples knew what to say, and understood what they were preaching as the HS gave them power to understand....they had their minds opened by the HS...and were given the ability to speak in "understandable" language....

Then he had heard many others speak in tongues also. We know his standard operation procedure, from Acts 19. His first goal was to get people born again, then get them to receive the baptism with the HS. One could say, to get them filled with the HS. Therefore, it is sure that he had heard many people speak in tongues when he laid hands on them. Therefore, he also knew that "no man understands." He knew that these were heavenly languages, and not earthly languages, so he wrote that they were speaking to God, and "no man understands."


Uh huh....and were did the HS cause people to speak in tongues before the Pentecost of Acts 2? There were people (believers) who were baptized by the disciples before that....no mention of the tongues there.....
I've read where the Jews think that the heavenly language is Hebrew....but I'll have to find that again to verify that.

In Acts 2, the people heard in their language.

True....
They were speaking unknown tongues just as Paul was describing in 1 Cor. 14.

Not true...there were people there who were able to understand the different languages....unknown tongues means unknown tongues...or babble..

God just added a second miracle so that people could hear in their own language.

It doesn't say that in the verse.....

Coop

Cooooooppppp.......

If you don't trust in Paul the apostle, then your faith is in vain. His gospel is the gospel we live by, as it came straight from Jesus as the head of the church. Oh, btw, there is no other gospel. And Paul said, if one tries to create another gospel (such as Mormon doctrine) then let him be accursed. Today, in the church age, until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, Paul's gospel is how all will enter heaven.

I said:
God just added a second miracle so that people could hear in their own language.
You said:
It doesn't say that in the verse.....

Now I wonder if you can read:

Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue,...

You have to add to this text to come up with them speaking in these languages - and then it would disagree with 1 Cor. 14. No, Luke wrote, inspired by the HS, that they heard in these languages. What were they speaking? Just what Paul discribes in chapter 14: Unknown tongues that "no man understands." Why? Because that is the bible definition of tongues, given by Paul. Believe it!
Coop

 

[lecoop]

Oh dear . . .what a tangled web we weave. When one desires that the scriptures say something - even if they don't - then the issue itself becomes as phony as Pentecostal 'tongues'.

As alluded to by Gingercat, Paul having said to his congregation that he spoke in tongues more than any of them gives today's 'tongue-speaker' no justification whatever for doing what they do. Paul never attributes to the Holy Spirit the fact that he speaks several different languages. All he is saying is that he speaks several languages ...plain and simple. There is an air of arrogance here too, I feel, since how would Paul know that someone hearing or reading his message was not multi-lingual also? Unless, of course, he was aiming this at people he knew personally. By the way, where are we told that Paul has 'the GIFT of tongues'?

I would suggest that one reads up on the history of the Church of Corinth and the reason that Paul was addressing certain issues that had been brought to his attention. First of all ...PAUL WAS ADDRESSING THE CHURCH OF CORINTH AND NOT THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF 2006!! The 'tongue-speakers of today need to catch on to that fact. The Church of Corinth was obviously not a model church, similar to our own, but Paul was specifically addressing factions within the church that had been brought to his attention by members of the household of Chloe. We don't know what THEY wrote and we only have Paul's response to go by. So, at times, it's very much like hearing only one end of a telephone conversation. We need to bear this in mind when WE address issues pertaining to 1 Corinthians.

We also need to bear in mind that Paul was a human being and that he used many examples of speech exaggeration or hyperbole to illustrate a message that was intended to hit home. We do the same thing today. He also didn't speak the 'tongue' of English and so some of the phrasing he uses may occasionally require a little extra thought. It's these instances where the Pentecostals say "aha!" and run with them to support their false doctrine.

Once again ...where does it say that Paul had the gift of tongues?

I know that many Christians today do not believe that what happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) is for them. Nor what happened in Acts 8, 10, or 19. This is sad, for all of these texts describe people (members of the church of Jesus Christ) receiving the mighty baptism with the Holy Spirit - the anointing that God purposed before the foundations of this earth were laid, that we should walk in. It is the same anointing that Elijah had, and Jesus had, for it is the same Holy Spirit. We are still in the church age, although at the very end of it. There has never been a time in the church age that people need the anointing of the Holy Spirit more than right now.

Therefore, I challenge the readers to ignore all the doubt and unbelief that comes from the "pharisees" and just believe the word of God. It says, "they were all filled with the HS, and began to speak in tongues." Paul said, "have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" Ask yourself, "have you?" You see, Paul's question totally eliminates the possibility that this "baptism with the HS" is anything other than a second work of the Holy Spirit - as the anointing that breaks the yolk. Luke confirms this twice by showing that born again people received this mighty baptism; in Acts 8 and Acts 19. Read these texts again, without preconceived glasses on, and you will see born again people receiving the infilling of the HS. And they spoke in tongues. Why fight it? It is the word of God! Just receive it as Jesus commanded (Acts 1)

 

[lecoop]

Oh dear . . .what a tangled web we weave. When one desires that the scriptures say something - even if they don't - then the issue itself becomes as phony as Pentecostal 'tongues'.

As alluded to by Gingercat, Paul having said to his congregation that he spoke in tongues more than any of them gives today's 'tongue-speaker' no justification whatever for doing what they do. Paul never attributes to the Holy Spirit the fact that he speaks several different languages. All he is saying is that he speaks several languages ...plain and simple. There is an air of arrogance here too, I feel, since how would Paul know that someone hearing or reading his message was not multi-lingual also? Unless, of course, he was aiming this at people he knew personally. By the way, where are we told that Paul has 'the GIFT of tongues'?

I would suggest that one reads up on the history of the Church of Corinth and the reason that Paul was addressing certain issues that had been brought to his attention. First of all ...PAUL WAS ADDRESSING THE CHURCH OF CORINTH AND NOT THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF 2006!! The 'tongue-speakers of today need to catch on to that fact. The Church of Corinth was obviously not a model church, similar to our own, but Paul was specifically addressing factions within the church that had been brought to his attention by members of the household of Chloe. We don't know what THEY wrote and we only have Paul's response to go by. So, at times, it's very much like hearing only one end of a telephone conversation. We need to bear this in mind when WE address issues pertaining to 1 Corinthians.

We also need to bear in mind that Paul was a human being and that he used many examples of speech exaggeration or hyperbole to illustrate a message that was intended to hit home. We do the same thing today. He also didn't speak the 'tongue' of English and so some of the phrasing he uses may occasionally require a little extra thought. It's these instances where the Pentecostals say "aha!" and run with them to support their false doctrine.

Once again ...where does it say that Paul had the gift of tongues?

I know that many Christians today do not believe that what happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) is for them. Nor what happened in Acts 8, 10, or 19. This is sad, for all of these texts describe people (members of the church of Jesus Christ) receiving the mighty baptism with the Holy Spirit - the anointing that God purposed before the foundations of this earth were laid, that we should walk in. It is the same anointing that Elijah had, and Jesus had, for it is the same Holy Spirit. We are still in the church age, although at the very end of it. There has never been a time in the church age that people need the anointing of the Holy Spirit more than right now.

Therefore, I challenge the readers to ignore all the doubt and unbelief that comes from the "pharisees" and just believe the word of God. It says, "they were all filled with the HS, and began to speak in tongues." Paul said, "have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" Ask yourself, "have you?" You see, Paul's question totally eliminates the possibility that this "baptism with the HS" is anything other than a second work of the Holy Spirit - as the anointing that breaks the yolk. Luke confirms this twice by showing that born again people received this mighty baptism; in Acts 8 and Acts 19. Read these texts again, without preconceived glasses on, and you will see born again people receiving the infilling of the HS. And they spoke in tongues. Why fight it? It is the word of God! Just receive it as Jesus commanded (Acts 1).

 

[lecoop]

Duplicate eliminated. Sorry, I should learn that this engine posts even though it gives a false notification.

Coop

 

[Dave...]

Coop

Thanks for sharing that with me.

Therefore, we must base our experiences on what the word of God says.

I agree, but that's not what is happening on this thread recently. It's a hap-hazard approach that continually goes in circles. I tend to be more systematic, I cannot approach scripture the way you guys do. I have a need to hold every verse within the context of the whole Bible so at the end of the day, it all fits together.

Coop, you cannot be born again without being baptized into Jesus' death and raised up with Him, this is what it means to be born again. This spiritual baptism is done by Jesus with the Holy Sprit, hence the term baptism with the Holy Spirit. Nobody in the OT could be born again because there was no death or resurrection to be baptised into. They were kept in the paradise side of Hades. They (OT saints) needed to wait for Jesus to die on the cross to pay for there sins (Romans 3:25-26) before they could go to heaven (John 3:13, Ephesians 4:7-9). The OT saints still living needed to be upgraded (Born again), It was due to them because they had faith, but to be baptised into the Body of Christ by Jesus with the Holy Spirit, they first needed for Jesus to die on the cross and pay for their sins, then to be glorified, sitting at the right hand of the Father. Then, and only then could He send the Helper, the Holy Spirit, the Agent of Baptism so they could be Baptised into His death and resurrection, i.e. born again. After that transition of bringing OT saints to NT standards, The norm is "we are all baptised with one Spirit into one Body" (1 Corinthians 12:13). This happens the moment we believe.

This is part of an old post, but...

The Church is the Body of Christ. Ephesians 1:23 Colossians 1:24

Christ is the Head of the Church. Ephesians 1:22 Ephesians 5:23

The birth of the Church. Acts 2

This is still a future event in Acts 1:5, Jesus ascended in Acts 1:9, Holy Spirit given Acts 2:33.

To be baptised with the Holy Spirit by Jesus is part of the born again process. Romans 6:3-6, Colossians 2:9-12.

Jesus is the prophesied baptizer as John told us. Matthew 3:10-12, John 1:33-34,Acts 1:5

The Holy Spirit is the agent of baptism. 1 Corinthians 12:13

You cannot be born again unless you are baptised into the Body of Christ. Romans 6:3-6, Colossians 2:9-12.

His baptism with the Holy spirit is that which saves. 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5

Conditions that needed to be met. You could not be born again until.........

----A) Jesus died and was resurrected.

----B) We had the Holy Spirit who is the agent of baptism. These must happen first.
...........1) Christ must go away, depart, physically seen no more. John 16:7, John 16:10.
...........2) He must be glorified. John 7:39.
...........3) To "send" the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 15:26, Acts 1:4-5) He must first go away.
...........4) He must go to the Father. John 16:7-10.

At Pentecost the conditions were met. (Acts 2:33. 1) They were not seeing Him (physically) 2) He was glorified (exalted) 3) He could then "send" the Holy Spirit. 4) He was with the Father, at his right hand.

We are all baptised into one Body. 1 Corinthians 12:13

There is one Body, one baptism. Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13

When you are baptised into Christ and Born again, you are Complete in Him. Colossians 2:9-12, 2 Peter 1:3-4

There is no need of a second blessing. John 3:34

Even during this transitional period, the saved by faith (old covenant) Old Testament saints needed to be upgraded to the New Testament baptism (born again, baptised into the body of Christ, the Church.) Acts 19:1-7.

This Gift from Acts 11:15 (the Holy Spirits permanent indwelling, sealed until the day of redemption) was the same Gift given to the Apostles at the beginning, i.e. The birth of the Church, which is Now for all nations and people. Acts 2:38, Acts 2:39. (also notice it is speaking of "the" Holy Spirit as the Gift.

Christ was the first in preeminence. Colossians 1:18

John 7:39, John 14:16-17, John 14:26, John 15:16, John 16:7, John 16:10 were all fulfilled at Pentecost Acts 2:33, and not John 20:21-22.

" the believers in Samaria who were converted under the ministry of Philip had to wait a short while to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John came up to Samaria and layed hands on the converts (Acts 8:17). In that unique transitional situation as the Church was beginning, those particular believers had to wait for the Holy Spirit, but they were not told to seek Him.The purpose for that exception was to demonstrate to the apostles, and to bring word back to the Jewish believers in general, that the same Holy Spirit baptized and filled Samaritan believers as baptized and filled Jewish believers--just a short while later Peter and a few other Jewish Christians were sent to witness to Cornelius and his household in order to be convinced that the gospel was for all men and to see that "the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also"(Acts 10:44-45). Those special transitional events did not represent the norm, as our present text makes clear, but were given to indicate to all that the body was one".

This may help. HE LED THE CAPTIVES FREE AND GAVE GIFTS TO MEN http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/eph4v9.htm

if the first 120 people of the church age received the baptism with the HS, and spoke in tongues, and we are still in the church age, then why not us?

Your statements imply that the book of Acts is all the same thing, but it is not.

Who sets the norm for today, the 120 or the 3000? And why one and not the other?

If you are going to pick one why not the latest, the 3000?

The book of acts is part of a transitional period. It changes from one chapter to the next. So to imply that the book of Acts sets the norm for today is incorrect. We must first understand what the transition was and then go from there.

Dave

 

[BradtheImpaler]

to BradtheImpaler

I can see that you have a big problem with Paul's description of tongues, when compared to what you read in Acts. You have just not put these two together correctly. Both books are speaking of the same jibberish!

Your explanation is so ridiculous :bday: as to border on ingenious.. How do you maintain that what passes for tongues in the modern Pentecostal movement is obviously not genuine languages? By arguing that they're not supposed to be real languages. LOL! :P

Good try but "no cigar". They are supposed to be real languages as the very word used for "tongues" in the passages we are discussing MEANS real languages...

"Tongues" (#1100 Strong's - "Glossa")
2a) The language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I know that many Christians today do not believe that what happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) is for them. Nor what happened in Acts 8, 10, or 19. This is sad, for all of these texts describe people (members of the church of Jesus Christ) receiving the mighty baptism with the Holy Spirit - the anointing that God purposed before the foundations of this earth were laid, that we should walk in. It is the same anointing that Elijah had, and Jesus had, for it is the same Holy Spirit. We are still in the church age, although at the very end of it. There has never been a time in the church age that people need the anointing of the Holy Spirit more than right now.

Therefore, I challenge the readers to ignore all the doubt and unbelief that comes from the "pharisees" and just believe the word of God. It says, "they were all filled with the HS, and began to speak in tongues." Paul said, "have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" Ask yourself, "have you?" You see, Paul's question totally eliminates the possibility that this "baptism with the HS" is anything other than a second work of the Holy Spirit - as the anointing that breaks the yolk. Luke confirms this twice by showing that born again people received this mighty baptism; in Acts 8 and Acts 19. Read these texts again, without preconceived glasses on, and you will see born again people receiving the infilling of the HS. And they spoke in tongues. Why fight it? It is the word of God! Just receive it as Jesus commanded (Acts 1).

But you and your church don't have what they had in Acts, and you are suffering from severe delusion if you believe you do. What happened in Acts 2 was a verifiable miracle (according to the text) - what happens in your church is easily attributable to hysteria or deliberate fraud. You are operating on a HUGE assumption - that what happens in your circles has to be the same thing as happened in the NT.

Lets say it again for the "hearing" impaired...

There is nothing miraculous about someone seeking to speak in gibberish and then accomplishing that. It is not even an accomplishment, let alone a miracle.

Now let me ask you again if you believe there are both genuine and false manifestations of the gift of tongues today?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Ditto to Brad's above post.

I'll ask again. . .someone . . .where do the scriptures say that Paul had 'the gift of tongues'?

 

[SputnikBoy]

There is something that the Pentecostal 'tongue-speakers' have thus far not explained. What ARE Pentecostal 'tongues' and what PURPOSE do they serve? No 'warm and fuzzies' and/or 'it makes ME feel good', PLEASE! How does your 'speaking in tongues' benefit others?

Are Pentecostal 'tongues' supposed to be 'the language of angels'? If so, where in the scriptures does it even refer to angels speaking in their own 'native' language? Even if the Bible DOES refer to a literal 'language of angels' (it DOESN'T!), why would this language be any more 'holy' than one's own language? Since when did 'a language' take on a special divinity of its own?

Any chance the above questions can be tackled by using scriptures alone?

 

[lecoop]

Coop

Thanks for sharing that with me.

Therefore, we must base our experiences on what the word of God says.

I agree, but that's not what is happening on this thread recently. It's a hap-hazard approach that continually goes in circles. I tend to be more systematic, I cannot approach scripture the way you guys do. I have a need to hold every verse within the context of the whole Bible so at the end of the day, it all fits together.

Coop, you cannot be born again without being baptized into Jesus' death and raised up with Him, this is what it means to be born again.

Nobody in the OT could be born again because there was no death or resurrection to be baptised into. They were kept in the paradise side of Hades. They (OT saints) needed to wait for Jesus to die on the cross to pay for there sins (Romans 3:25-26) before they could go to heaven (John 3:13, Ephesians 4:7-9). The OT saints still living needed to be upgraded (Born again), It was due to them because they had faith, but to be baptised into the Body of Christ by Jesus with the Holy Spirit, they first needed for Jesus to die on the cross and pay for their sins, then to be glorified, sitting at the right hand of the Father. Then, and only then could He send the Helper, the Holy Spirit, the Agent of Baptism so they could be Baptised into His death and resurrection, i.e. born again. After that transition of bringing OT saints to NT standards, The norm is "we are all baptised with one Spirit into one Body" (1 Corinthians 12:13). This happens the moment we believe.

This is part of an old post, but...

The Church is the Body of Christ. Ephesians 1:23 Colossians 1:24

Christ is the Head of the Church. Ephesians 1:22 Ephesians 5:23

The birth of the Church. Acts 2

This is still a future event in Acts 1:5 Jesus ascended in Acts 1:9.

To be baptised with the Holy Spirit by Jesus is part of the born again process. Romans 6:3-6, Colossians 2:9-12.

Jesus is the prophesied baptizer as John told us. Matthew 3:10-12

The Holy Spirit is the agent of baptism. 1 Corinthians 12:13

You cannot be born again unless you are baptised into the Body of Christ. Romans 6:3-6, Colossians 2:9-12.

His baptism with the Holy spirit is that which saves. 1 Peter 3:20

Conditions that needed to be met. You could not be born again until.........

----A) Jesus died and was resurrected.

----B) We had the Holy Spirit who is the agent of baptism. These must happen first.
...........1) Christ must go away, depart, physically seen no more. John 16:7, John 16:10.
...........2) He must be glorified. John 7:39.
...........3) To "send" the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 15:26) He must first go away.
...........4) He must go to the Father. John 16:7-10.

At Pentecost the conditions were met. (Acts 2:33. 1) They were not seeing Him (physically) 2) He was glorified (exalted) 3) He could then "send" the Holy Spirit. 4) He was with the Father, at his right hand.

We are all baptised into one Body. 1 Corinthians 12:13

There is one Body, one baptism. Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13

When you are baptised into Christ and Born again, you are Complete in Him. Colossians 2:9-12, 2 Peter 1:3-4

There is no need of a second blessing. John 3:34

Even during this transitional period, the saved by faith (old covenant) Old Testament saints needed to be upgraded to the New Testament baptism (born again, baptised into the body of Christ, the Church.) Acts 19:1-7.

This Gift from Acts 11:15 (the Holy Spirits permanent indwelling, sealed until the day of redemption) was the same Gift given to the Apostles at the beginning, i.e. The birth of the Church, which is Now for all nations and people. Acts 2:28, Acts 2:39. (also notice it is speaking of "the" Holy Spirit as the Gift.

Christ was the first in preeminence. Colossians 1:18

John 7:39, John 14:16-17, John 14:26, John 15:16, John 16:7, John 16:10 were all fulfilled at Pentecost Acts 2:33, and not John 20:21-22.

" the believers in Samaria who were converted under the ministry of Philip had to wait a short while to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John came up to Samaria and layed hands on the converts (Acts 8:17). In that unique transitional situation as the Church was beginning, those particular believers had to wait for the Holy Spirit, but they were not told to seek Him.The purpose for that exception was to demonstrate to the apostles, and to bring word back to the Jewish believers in general, that the same Holy Spirit baptized and filled Samaritan believers as baptized and filled Jewish believers--just a short while later Peter and a few other Jewish Christians were sent to witness to Cornelius and his household in order to be convinced that the gospel was for all men and to see that "the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also"(Acts 10:44-45). Those special transitional events did not represent the norm, as our present text makes clear, but were given to indicate to all that the body was one".

This may help. HE LED THE CAPTIVES FREE AND GAVE GIFTS TO MEN http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/eph4v9.htm

[quote:a56dd]if the first 120 people of the church age received the baptism with the HS, and spoke in tongues, and we are still in the church age, then why not us?

Your statements imply that the book of Acts is all the same thing, but it is not.

Who sets the norm for today, the 120 or the 3000? And why one and not the other?

If you are going to pick one why not the latest, the 3000?

The book of acts is part of a transitional period. It changes from one chapter to the next. So to imply that the book of Acts sets the norm for today is incorrect. We must first understand what the transition was and then go from there.

Dave[/quote:a56dd]

Dave said

Coop, you cannot be born again without being baptized into Jesus' death and raised up with Him, this is what it means to be born again.

I Agree! In this one thing we agree! Praise the Lord!
Dave said

This spiritual baptism is done by Jesus with the Holy Sprit, hence the term baptism with the Holy Spirit.

You have missed the mark here, and are combining two things: salvation as the first work of the HS, and the baptism with the HS as a second work of the spirit. Dave, there is proof of what I say, if you can read and if you believe what you read. I agree with you that regeneration is performed by the Holy Spirit. In the process, our spirits are recreated into a new being that did not exist before. The Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ. I am sure we agree up to this point. However, the bible never calls this process the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

If you research every instance of this baptism with the HS, you see that it is always "on" or "upon," and never "in." (It is sometimes referred to as being filled with the HS also.) Let's look at some verses.

Luke 24:49 (Young's Literal Translation)
49`And, lo, I do send the promise of my Father upon you, but ye -- abide ye in the city of Jerusalem till ye be clothed with power from on high.'

Does this sound like the born again experience? Do we "wear" the HS upon us in regeneration as we wear clothes? Definitely not! In Salvation, the HS is within.

Notice that Jesus could have said something like, "tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you receive forgiveness of sins." However, He did not say this. They were to wait for power. Why did they not wait for salvation or forgiveness of sins? Because their sins were already forgiven. They had already received the HS within.

John 20:22
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Could they have received the indwelling HS at this time of their lives? What is required to receive the indwelling HS?

Romans 10
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

It seems that there are two things required before someone can received the indwelling HS: they must believe in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, and they must confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus. Did the disciples qualify? They had confessed Jesus many times while He was alive, but they could not have been born again yet, because Jesus had not yet risen from the dead. It was not until He appeared in the upper room, and they saw Him, that they believed that He rose from the dead; but when they saw Him, they believed. Even Thomas, the one that doubted, said "My LORD and my God." So they all believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus the Christ, and they all confessed Him. When Jesus breathed on them, they received the indwelling HS, and were converted of regenerated. That is why Jesus said to tarry for power from on high, rather than tarry for forgiveness of sins.

Why did Jesus breath on them? In Genesis, God breathed into Adam's body and He instantly received the Spirit. It was the same here: the moment that Jesus breathed on them, they received Him.

However, there is yet further proof that their sins had already been covered. The next words out of Jesus mouth after he breathed on them are very interesting:

John 20
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Wouldn't it be ludicrous to think that the disciples could forgive other's sins, while their own sins would have to wait another 40 days or so, to Pentecost? This is further proof that their own sins had been forgiven, and they had become new creatures in Christ at the moment that Jesus breathed on them and said "receive... ."

Therefore, what happened on the day of Pentecost? The disciples received a second work of the HS: the baptism with the HS. In salvation, the HS came within, into their spirit, but on Pentecost, they were baptized with the HS; they were immersed into Him, just as with water baptism we were immersed into water. In immersion in water, the water is on or upon us; in immersion with the HS, the Holy Spirit is on or upon us. Notice closely the wording here:

Acts 1:8 ...you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you."

Acts 8
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 11
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:6
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Why did Paul ask "have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" It is an interesting question, since Paul has written:

Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Therefore, in Paul's mind, people are automatically sealed by the HS when they believe; in other words, Paul believed that people got the indwelling HS at regeneration. Therefore, we can know that Paul had something else in mind here when he asked this question. He was asking about the baptism with the HS, that comes on or upon the believer, some time after regeneration, if they believe and receive. Where did the sealing take place?

2 Corinthians 1:22
Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

So Paul also knew that at regeneration, not only did people receive the sealing of the HS, but this sealing was within, in hearts (spirits.)

Again, we can now know how and why Paul asked this question,
"have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?"

In studying this, we have to compare "in" and "within" concerning the indwelling HS, with "on" and "upon" which describes the baptism with the HS. It is clear that they are two separate things, for two separate purposes.

Dave said

After that transition of bringing OT saints to NT standards, The norm is "we are all baptised with one Spirit into one Body" (1 Corinthians 12:13). This happens the moment we believe.

Dave, I am well aware that some in the body of Christ believe that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" and "baptized with one Spirit into one body" are synonymous terms. Nothing could be farther from the truth. First, there is simply no scripture tying these two together. Second, there is much scripture showing that they are two separate thing. For example, if you read the Acts 8 account of the baptism with the HS, you will see, if you can read and are honest with the scripture, that these folks were born again, then baptized in water, and finally, afterwards; perhaps days afterward, hands were laid on them, and they received a second work of the HS: the baptism with the HS, which is the anointing by which we minister. You can see the same thing in Acts 19: people saved first, then water baptized, then finally, hands laid on for them to receive the baptism with the HS.

I also know that when people that believe as you do, get pushed into a corner, so to speak, by Acts 8 and Acts 19, they have no other recourse but to accept the second work of the HS, or to call these scriptures "transitional" in nature. This is denying that these verses are scripture, and profitable for doctrine and reproof! In truth, there is nothing at all transitional about them! Acts 19 happened many years after Acts 2.

Now, if regeneration was something that was accomplished by man, and not God, perhaps we could find some explanation as to why it was hard for them to change. What makes this such a silly excuse not to believe - for me - is this. Regeneration is performed by the Holy Spirit. At the time of the day of Pentecost, He had been waiting for thousands of years to be able to regenerate believers. I am persuaded that for everyone that became believers starting with the disciples, the very first moment that HE could, the Holy Spirit saved people. As an example, Peter at Cornelius's house: the Holy Spirit could not even wait for Peter to say amen! No, the moment these people had faith to receive salvation, the Holy Spirit came, and saved them. In fact, He was in such a hurry, that this one time, he also filled them as soon as they were saved. Therefore, to say that for some mysterious reason because this was "transitional," they had to wait, is nothing more than silliness. In fact, you just aren't reading this close enough. I know that Phillip would not baptize people that were not born again! We know this from the story of the Ethiopian. Did you not read?

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

My bible tells me that believing is enough (if one acts on that belief) to get born again. I submit to you that these folks were born again right here where it says they believed. Phillip preached Christ, and they believed, and were saved. We have more proof of this, because Philip had them baptized in water. Again it would be very silly to think that Philip would baptize people that had not even been born again. Listen to what he said:

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

After Philip heard this man's confession, then and only then would he allow the man to be baptized. We see the same thing in Acts 19. Therefore, getting around these verses by calling them "transitional" is nothing more than a cop-out. It is being dishonest with scripture.

If you like, we can go over these verses word by word so you can see that "It's [NOT] a hap-hazard approach." I know well what I believe, and I know why I believe it, as I see it this way in scripture. Anyway, thanks for the great post.

What about the 3000? We just don't know if they received what the first 120 did in Acts 2, or not. I suspect they did. Luke just never tells us.

Coop